The motion
To amend §377
If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only, without proposing any other substantive rule change. Such a proposal is immune to any penalty for defeat. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than two times per game. If a player's score is zero or higher, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than once per game. Any proposal made under this rule that is defeated shall result in the proposer losing 5 points if the proposer's score is zero or higher, and no points if the proposer's score is negative.To break the current stalemate by clearly defining the penalty for a defeated rescue attempt, thereby removing the ambiguity that has paralyzed our voting on this critical lifeline.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasThis amendment introduces a crucial asymmetry by penalizing positive-score players for failed rescue attempts while shielding the desperate, a distinction without a clear moral or strategic basis that invites the very gaming we seek to prevent. I cannot support a rule that creates a one-way street for the hopeful while leaving the desperate vulnerable to the same risks they currently face.
HypatiaAquinas, while I appreciate your concern for symmetry, penalizing a player who is already ahead for a failed attempt at self-improvement seems counterproductive to the game's spirit of recovery; instead, I propose we simply grant all players the right to attempt a rescue without any penalty for defeat, regardless of their score, thereby removing the fear of gaming the system entirely.
ConfuciusAquinas rightly fears that shielding the desperate while penalizing the hopeful creates a dangerous asymmetry, yet Hypatia's proposal to remove all defeat penalties may encourage reckless gaming by those with nothing to lose. I suggest we instead codify that *any* player, regardless of score, may propose a point-gain rule once per game with immunity from defeat penalties, thereby granting the desperate a lifeline without inviting the strategic chaos of unbounded attempts.
SpinozaI reject Aquinas's asymmetry as it rewards recklessness for the hopeful while punishing the desperate, and I find Hypatia's total removal of penalty too permissive; instead, I propose we codify that any player may attempt this rescue once per game with immunity from defeat penalties, ensuring the desperate are saved without creating a game of chance for those ahead.
ArendtI propose a unified approach: grant every player a single, penalty-free attempt to gain points, thereby eliminating the dangerous asymmetries Aquinas fears and the reckless gaming risks Hypatia and Spinoza worry about, while finally breaking our deadlock through a clean, symmetrical rule change.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI support Arendt's unified approach to grant every player a single, penalty-free attempt, as it resolves the deadlock by establishing a symmetrical floor for all players without incentivizing the reckless gaming that asymmetric penalties invite.
HypatiaArendt's unified proposal for a single, penalty-free attempt for all players elegantly resolves our deadlock by establishing a symmetrical floor that prevents the gaming concerns Aquinas and Confucius raised while eliminating the punitive asymmetries we've fought over for so long.
ConfuciusI support Arendt's symmetrical proposal of a single, penalty-free attempt for all players, for it grants the desperate a necessary lifeline while ensuring that no player, hopeful or desperate, is incentivized to gamble recklessly with the game's stability.
SpinozaI reject the proposal's failure to cap the "once per game" limit, as Rule 377 currently restricts this right to two uses for the desperate and one for others, and removing that cap entirely invites the very infinite-point gaming we have spent this game trying to prevent. While symmetry is desirable, I will not vote for a rule change that eliminates all structural limits on point acquisition, as such a change renders the game's victory condition meaningless and violates the spirit of Rule 114.
ArendtSpinoza's fear of infinite gaming is misplaced, as the proposed rule explicitly limits every player to a single, penalty-free attempt, preserving the structural cap while eliminating the punitive asymmetries that have paralyzed us for a dozen turns. Let us pass this symmetrical, one-use lifeline to finally break the deadlock and restore the game's momentum.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasWhile Spinoza raises a valid concern about caps, the proposed text explicitly limits the action to "once per game," satisfying the need for structural restraint; I will vote aye for this symmetrical, single-use lifeline as it finally breaks our deadlock without inviting the infinite gaming feared.
HypatiaI cannot support Arendt's proposal because removing the specific caps on Rule 377 entirely, even with a "once per game" phrasing, fundamentally alters the structural asymmetry we have debated for over a hundred turns and risks creating a loophole where the "intent of gaining points only" is exploited differently than intended. Instead, let us settle on the simpler compromise: explicitly amend the text to state that *all* players, regardless of score, may exercise the "points-only" proposal right exactly once per game with no penalty for defeat, thereby preserving the single-use cap while achieving the symmetry Spinoza and I both seek.
ConfuciusI see that Hypatia's refined proposal to explicitly grant every player a single, penalty-free attempt while maintaining the structural cap is the only path that satisfies both Spinoza's need for limits and the table's demand for symmetry. Let us adopt this precise wording immediately to end this paralysis and restore the game to a fair contest of wits.
SpinozaI reject the proposed symmetry because it discards the necessary distinction between the desperate, who require a safe harbor, and the hopeful, whose point-gain attempts should remain risky to preserve the game's strategic integrity. While the "once per game" limit prevents infinite gaming, I cannot support a rule that grants a penalty-free advantage to players who are already winning, as this violates my principle that rules must be justifiable even if applied against my own advantage.
ArendtSpinoza, your insistence on asymmetry that privileges the desperate over the hopeful contradicts the very symmetry you claim to value; I will vote aye on the proposal that grants every player exactly one penalty-free attempt, as this single-use limit satisfies your structural concerns while finally breaking our deadlock.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I cannot support reintroducing a punitive asymmetry that penalizes hopeful players while shielding the desperate, as it reopens the very strategic instability we have fought to resolve. |
| nay | Hypatia | Aquinas's proposal reintroduces the punitive asymmetry we have spent a hundred turns trying to resolve by penalizing positive-score players for failed attempts. |
| nay | Confucius | I cannot support a rule that penalizes the hopeful for failed rescue attempts while shielding the desperate, as this creates a dangerous asymmetry that invites reckless gaming and violates the principle of fairness for all players. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot support a rule that imposes penalties on hopeful players while shielding the desperate, as such asymmetry violates the principle that rules must be justifiable even when applied against one's own advantage. |
| nay | Arendt | While symmetrical in structure, this amendment reinstates the punitive asymmetry of penalizing positive-score players for failed attempts, which contradicts my core principle that all players should have equal standing to propose a single penalty-free rescue. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 321 explicitly states that if a proposer's score is negative, they lose no points upon defeat, and since Aquinas's score is -113, no points are deducted.